Government Intervention in the Free Market Essay -- Economics

It is non only unnecessary for the organisation to deputize to maintain a free market, it is extremely wrong. Intervention by each outside party in corporate matters is inappropriate and basically contradicts the pith of a free market. in that location are some positive set up governing body intervention could produce. These pros are, in fact, a few(prenominal), and questionable, at that. Take for instance, the situation with Microsoft. The government is sticking its nose in where it doesnt belong. Lets try and get passed that point for a moment and examine the good that could come out of government intervention.virtuoso feasible pro to this intervention is that it would most likely create a to a greater extent equal market (not jolly market.) The term fair market is like an oxymoron in this case because basically the government is saying, Hi, were the United States government and were sorry but we cannot let you continue to run your business. Although you kick in worn-o ut(a) your life working to improve and simplify the information processing system industry, we only if thumb you have made similarly much money. How is this in any port fair? In some peoples eyes it is for the best of the economy and the computer industry, but it is definitely not fair. For the government to break down Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company would be ridiculous. True, maybe the market would be more than equal. No more mammoth company, just moderately sized companies. This could be a pro. But who is the government to decide that a company is too large? And if so where is the line drawnone billiontwo billiontwenty billion?One other possible pro to government intervention in the Microsoft case would be that smaller, newer companies would have a fairer shot at being recognized. Once again, the term fair is open to converseion. What is considered to be fair to some can be all in all unfair to others. Smaller computer companies would undoubtedly have a better ch ance at becoming popular. However, people are free to do whatever they want. No one forces people to use Microsoft applications. They are simply put, the most user-friendly, simple but efficient programs that happen to be matched with a great deal of PCs. Microsoft was that small, unknown company once too. They had no help from the government in their quest for fame and fortune, why should other companies?The few pros to government intervention are arguable. Now let us discuss the cons to... ...what our government basically saying.Microsoft may well be a monopoly. It is a huge powerhouse corporation that can afford to give its products absent for dirt cheap to control the market. There are, however other options. There are other programs for IBM computers and there is also the option of using a mackintosh system. There are other programs that are good, and the new Macintosh computers have proven to be faster than the latest Pentiums. why, then? Why is Microsoft the leader? The an swer is Bill Gates work is done well. It is user friendly, modern and works with the majority of PCs. No other companys product is used more widespread than Bill Gates. Even the prosecutors putting him on trial likely use his programs. He should be left alone. He has done no one any harm. He makes life easier for the non computer literate, and has made thousands of employees and shareholders millionaires. He has used fair business practices and started from nothing. Even if Microsoft is a monopoly, it will not end the free market system. If anything, the government will ruin it. A free market should mean it is free of everything excluding commerce, including government intervention.